Info on Next Patch

[Terefor]

Sorry, already posted.

 

[Mac2411]

As far as the AI is concerned, the open terrain penalty *should* make open terrain literally a no-go for it.
As ohioastronomy correctly points out below, due to the traffic jam problems of 1upt the AI nevertheless is "forced" (by bad code) to move units into the open anyway.
Because this "forciing" is a result of other units already having moved the AI is incapable of planning for this which ultimately leads to the fact that AI units in open terrain typically are easy prey for the human.





But with the open terrain penaly the weaknesses of AI pathfinding (together with bad decisions about the sequence in which units move) become even more obvious.

Apart from this an open terrain penalty is across all historical experience.
Battles throughout almost the entire history were fought in open space. Part of the medevial combat doctrines was that the attacker would be at a disadvantage as he would have to expose his troops to enemy archery fire.

The Civ5 combat system with its various sub-systems completely turns early time warfare in its opposite. There isn't any plausibility in the way in which we are forced to use troops.

Worse, the open terrain penalty even punishes ideas like flanking the enemy by making use of higher movement rates in open terrain.

In total, the Civ5 combat system is much more a perversion of real life experiences than Civ4's combat system could ever have been.
By nerfing down the penalty the devs admit to see this problem, but simultenously show to be stubborn enough to avoid to make the necessary changes as long as ever possible.

One could say that the poor state of AI warfare as of release was due to a rushed release. That they are not willing to make basic changes, yet only do some cosmetics, two months later puts them even into a worse light.

Right off the top of my head I can think of several major Classical era battles that were not fought in open terrain: Thermopylae (Greco-Persian); Lake Trasimene (Second Punic War); and Teutoberg Forest (Roman Campaign in Germany). In all of those instances the victor (one could call Thermopylae a strategic victory for the Greeks because of the delay it caused the Persians and the relative casualties they suffered) used the close and rough terrain to its advantage and won the day. Thus, I think you are overstating the historical argument here.

 

[MkLh]

* Policies must be selected the turn they are earned. (Added 11/18)

This is simply horrible. There won't be any strategical planning in getting Social Policies any more. SPs will be just some kind of a bonus you occasionally get. It doesn't affect at all in the ICS though.

 

[RedFury_au]

Personally, I agree with most of the changes but there is one which I just need to comment on...

I see the removal of delayed-SP choosing as a very ill-thought out termination of a real opportunity for strategic decision-making. Let me explain a bit...

Yes, I know and agree that as it stands it feels very exploitative. But the equation is quite simple:

Do I sacrifice having SP A for X turns so that I can get the better SP B with the same pick.

The problem currently is that this equation is really unbalanced because:

a) Getting from A to B is too easy due to unbalanced GS bulbing and possible RA abuse (partial research.) This could be fixed by balancing GS tech bulbing (less/fixed beakers) or making science specialists contribute less points per turn.

b) Reaching B unlocks every policy in a new branch. This is a huge part of the explot for me. Something simple like requiring 1 tech PER POLICY for the era in question could help. So unlocking a later tree requires 1 industrial tech, getting the top policy 2 techs, grabbing the whole tree requires 6 techs .. etc.

c) Later trees can tend to get way better bonuses than earlier ones, particularly towards the bottom parts of their branches. This could be overcome by slightly increasing the usefulness of some of the earlier trees to make the opportunity cost of missing that bonus while you save up for the better one actually a worthy choice.

It seems to me firaxis are cutting the hand of something that could be a really interesting game mechanic rather than bothering to balance the very interesting strategic choice that could lie within it.

The only argument against it IMHO is realism, which I know is important to some people - it's a personal preference and I can't really argue with that. For me however, I'll take a mechanic that *could* add strategic depth and decision-making to a game that (imho) is sorely lacking in that department over a bit more realism any day.

 

[RedFury_au]

This is simply horrible. There won't be any strategical planning in getting Social Policies any more. SPs will be just some kind of a bonus you occasionally get. It doesn't affect at all in the ICS though.

Your answer is much more concise than mine (above) but in essence I completely agree. It just needs messing with to actual be a worthwhile *decision* rather than something which you should pretty much always do.

 

[eric_]

Policies must be selected the turn they are earned. (Added 11/18)
Promotions must be selected the turn they are earned. If it’s as a result of combat, then the beginning of the next turn. (Added 11/18)

::: facepalm :::

I can live with the policies change, as you can still follow a path that fits your general strategy; however, the promotions?! Why?! There are currently significant tactical implications for promotions, and the decision of how to use them should be possible on a tactical basis (e.g., an enemy unit emerges from the fog getting you in ZoC where only open terrain surrounds you.)

On the other hand, I guess this will force more planning, i.e., give offensive troops open terrain bonuses, medic, etc., for when they have to slog through killing fields near a city, and defensive ones rough terrain bonuses, etc.

Other than those two, I really like what they're doing.

 

[PieceOfMind]

pi-r8 is right. As far as I can tell, the change to social policies actually makes larger empires more attractive again, because it is easier for them to delay the earning of their policies by expanding and then building up culture income mid to late game. The small empires who focus on culture early have to pick all the early era SPs, until they reach later eras of course.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

This is simply horrible. There won't be any strategical planning in getting Social Policies any more. SPs will be just some kind of a bonus you occasionally get.

I think that's more because the policies aren't balanced. Once I realized how terrible the tradition branch was (for example), the choices narrowed down significantly. If they make some of them stink a little less, I think there were be plenty of choices.

I see why they made the change. Still, I wonder how anyone will ever be able to make enough culture jumps post-industrial to be able to get to the end of those later policies.

One of the additions that hasn't made much news here is the removal of upkeep for those defensive buildings. While I doubt this makes much of a difference for the deity "optimizing your game" type players, it should add a little fun and variety to what you get to build. I'd hope they do the same for some of the other buildings.

 

[lschnarch]

Right off the top of my head I can think of several major Classical era battles that were not fought in open terrain: Thermopylae (Greco-Persian); Lake Trasimene (Second Punic War); and Teutoberg Forest (Roman Campaign in Germany). In all of those instances the victor (one could call Thermopylae a strategic victory for the Greeks because of the delay it caused the Persians and the relative casualties they suffered) used the close and rough terrain to its advantage and won the day. Thus, I think you are overstating the historical argument here.

Well, Thermopylae was to block the enemy's approach at a bottleneck, while Teutoburg and Trasimene were classical ambushes.
In the first event, the Persians had no chance to avoid the battle at the given place, in the other two cases the Romans were not expecting the battle to take place where it happened. In the case of Teutoburg they weren't actually expecting any battle at all.

And even then, the fighting took place in the open parts of the terrain.

Ancient battles were just *not* fought in the woods and mountains.

You may go now and find one or two counter-examples, but what does this mean in the context of thousands of battles fought in open terrain?

 

[Mac2411]

Well, Thermopylae was to block the enemy's approach at a bottleneck, while Teutoburg and Trasimene were classical ambushes.
In the first event, the Persians had no chance to avoid the battle at the given place, in the other two cases the Romans were not expecting the battle to take place where it happened. In the case of Teutoburg they weren't actually expecting any battle at all.

And even then, the fighting took place in the open parts of the terrain.

Ancient battles were just *not* fought in the woods and mountains.

You may go now and find one or two counter-examples, but what does this mean in the context of thousands of battles fought in open terrain?

I don't need to go find other examples (although there are many). In each of those instances I already mentioned, one side intentionally chose to fight in terrain that was not open. It was the exact opposite and that's why they chose it. The terrain gave them a tactical advantage or undermined an advantage their enemy had.

I will agree that the majority of large battles in the ancient world were fought in relatively open terrain (of course, most ancient civilizations existed in the open flood plains of major rivers so that was kind of bound to be the case), but that does not undermine the fact that open terrain carries disadvantages for the army fighting there. That is exactly the effect modeled in Civ V. If I one places his or her army on a hill and the enemy is before them in open and flat terrain (remember hills can be "open" as well), the army on the hill has the advantage in the defense. It may even have an advantage in the offense given it's superior position. I don't think that's really debatable.

 

[shozum]

This patch is going to kill current play styles.

No more rushing for horseman to conquer the ancient era. Now you have to actually use a variety of troops! Greeks needed to be brought down a peg anywho.

More powerful naval units? Elizabeth says thank you! Ottomans say thank you! Both can use a slight buff and hopefully will get a little more love as we go along

Maritime states getting nerfed is probably one of the greatest things ever. Hurts ICS bad and hits the Greeks, Aztecs, and Siam slightly too. We all should have seen this coming.

Free city defense bonuses and quicker healing! YAY for the MP community since I never bothered building these in SP. Cities were weak, now they are becoming true bastions of your people. Slight boost to India has been noted.

Social policies being chosen on the turn they are acquired is fine. It destroys a few exploits used to bring about a cultural victory (giving away cities late game once xxxx culture has been accumilated comes to mind), weakens puppeting since a puppet city almost always builds culture buildings, and puts even more pressure on ICS timing. France, Siam, and the Aztecs will also feel the effects more than others.

Military promotions being chosen on the turn they are acquired is awesomeness. No more marching armies stacked with insta heals. Huge buff to MP since units with 3 stored upgrades were a common tactic of a few buddies I played with and it was annoying to say the least for a n00b pikeman with no upgrades to turn into a rough terrain bad arse in a single turn or for that catapult to be damaged by your city, instahealed, damaged by your archer, and instahealed again so that it attacked at full strength.

AI buffs and improvements are always welcomed and I'm sure will evolve with each released patch.

All in all, I'm in love. Now if they would only release the SDK and MP patch.

 

[Thalassicus]

It's nice to see several issues we've been addressing added to the gameplay changes section, it's a good start.

* Science building track adjustments (cost, specialist slots, GP Points, etc). (Added 11/18)
* Amount of damage caused during naval combat increased. (Added 11/18)
* Melee horse units combat value lowered, and now receive a penalty when attacking cities. (Added 11/18)
* Lowered bonuses received from Maritime city-states. (Added 11/18)
* Removed maintenance from defensive buildings. (Added 11/18)
* Multiple unit upgrade track adjustments. Most (but not all) units now have a full upgrade path from start to finish. (Added 11/18)
* Open terrain penalty lowered. (Added 11/18)

• City Development
• Combat
• Combat
• Diplomacy
• City Development
• Combat
• Combat

 

[ohioastronomy]

The current play styles arose in response to problems in the "intended" approach. The approach appears to be purely punitive, as opposed to relaxing some of the harsher aspects of the game which led people to search for work-arounds in the first place.

I think the social policies change is simply wrong, in the sense that it simply marginalizes that choice even more for all but the smallest empires (in effect, it makes beelining techs even more required to get to the "good" choices.)

I also think that removing the free heal promotion would have been better than requiring people to spend them immediately (I'd have preferred needing to return to friendly turf to train up, for example, as an alternative.)

We're just looking at a slower game where you have even more incentive to just stack cities to the rafters (since you won't be able to save up for social policies with a restricted set of cities, might as well plaster the map right away.)

 

[Drawmeus]

I think that's more because the policies aren't balanced. Once I realized how terrible the tradition branch was (for example), the choices narrowed down significantly. If they make some of them stink a little less, I think there were be plenty of choices.

I see why they made the change. Still, I wonder how anyone will ever be able to make enough culture jumps post-industrial to be able to get to the end of those later policies.

One of the additions that hasn't made much news here is the removal of upkeep for those defensive buildings. While I doubt this makes much of a difference for the deity "optimizing your game" type players, it should add a little fun and variety to what you get to build. I'd hope they do the same for some of the other buildings.

There's some imbalance, but the thing here is that the policies are balanced around the assumption that you'll spend them as soon as you earn them; the 'save them up and spend all at once later' strategy is unintended/borderline exploitative. You're not supposed to - ever - be choosing Tradition vs Patronage or Tradition vs Order. You're supposed to be choosing Tradition, Liberty, or Honor early on.

Yes, they're still imbalanced, but not nearly as much as it seems.

 

[eric_]

IMO horses should have a bonus against walls, in particular, not cities in general.

 

[eric_]

We're just looking at a slower game where you have even more incentive to just stack cities to the rafters (since you won't be able to save up for social policies with a restricted set of cities, might as well plaster the map right away.)

Isn't ICS essentially impossible beyond a certain point until certain policies are unlocked? If so, won't the downsides of plastering the map become crippling when unmitigated by early access to certian SPs?

 

[Feanor73]

It seems this patch will put the game out of beta...

Lot of positive changes, one bad (SP-change), design problems will still be here.

 

[Celevin]

There's some imbalance, but the thing here is that the policies are balanced around the assumption that you'll spend them as soon as you earn them; the 'save them up and spend all at once later' strategy is unintended/borderline exploitative. You're not supposed to - ever - be choosing Tradition vs Patronage or Tradition vs Order. You're supposed to be choosing Tradition, Liberty, or Honor early on.

Yes, they're still imbalanced, but not nearly as much as it seems.

The problem is that the later awesome policy trees (Order, Freedom, Rationalism) aren't actually that far away. Even if you force people to choose some policies early, that won't stop people from slingshotting to the later trees well before 0 AD. In fact, it will only want people to slingshot even more in order to get to them before their policies are accidentally used. I'm predicting people purposely not building culture buildings until their slingshot ends just so they don't have to use up their cheaper policies.

The problems *really* are:
1) Slingshotting is way, way too easy
2) The later trees are so good compared to the earlier ones that people will build entire strategies around waiting for them


Forcing people to spend policies immediately is a band-aid fix, and saving policies is just a side-effect shown by people exploiting the real problems.

 

[lschnarch]

I don't need to go find other examples (although there are many). In each of those instances I already mentioned, one side intentionally chose to fight in terrain that was not open. It was the exact opposite and that's why they chose it. The terrain gave them a tactical advantage or undermined an advantage their enemy had.

Sorry, but this is just not true.
The fighting in all three cases took place in flat, open terrain.

They were fighting in the open terrain.
Trasimene:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...lachtgelände.jpg&filetimestamp=20080508095250
Thermopylae:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermopylae_ancient_coastline_large.jpg
Teutoburg:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Varus01.jpg&filetimestamp=20090324132811

In the case of Varus' battle at Teutoburg Forest (which actually at that time may not have been as open as depicted), don't forget that this was not only an ambush, but that the Romans didn't expect any battle or even fighting at all, as Arminius was supposed to be an ally.

I will agree that the majority of large battles in the ancient world were fought in relatively open terrain (of course, most ancient civilizations existed in the open flood plains of major rivers so that was kind of bound to be the case), but that does not undermine the fact that open terrain carries disadvantages for the army fighting there. That is exactly the effect modeled in Civ V. If I one places his or her army on a hill and the enemy is before them in open and flat terrain (remember hills can be "open" as well), the army on the hill has the advantage in the defense. It may even have an advantage in the offense given it's superior position. I don't think that's really debatable.

Once again, this is not (completely) true.
1) Hills
I will admit that an attacker charging downwards from a hill will have an additional advantage due to the higher speed he gains by going downhill.
But this is only true for a rather short distance, as neither men nor horses will run over long distances without getting exhausted. Furthermore, the sides of the hill aren't allowed to be too steep nor shall there be too many obstacles (creeks, bushes, ground waves, whatever).

This limits the area considerably to only some hundreds of meters.
This distance on the other hand enables the defender to prepare (individually) for the charging, even more if being aware of the enemy's presence.
In that case, it was typical for the ones in the lower terrain to build something like light barricades, dig some trenches and what not more.

2) Forests
In earlier times (up to and including the beginning of the 20th century) you would avoid to fight in forests as you would lose control over your units.
It may have happened that parts of your units would have to fight in the forests, but only in the context of the main battle taking place in the open.

In both cases, latest after the opponent has entered the same terrain, the advantage of the defender due to terrain is gone.
Actually, forest give you a defensive advantage when they have to be entered by the attacker, in other words, while his forces are still outside of the forest.
After that, it comes down to fighting man against man, with the result being open.

Similar it is with fighting in hilly regions. As soon as the attacker has entered this region, the advantage lies with whom has the higher elevation, which typically can change every hundred meters.

The display of the terrain's influence in Civ games is completely distorted.
If we were to go into detail about the scale of the maps, it would become even worse.

In total, the influence of hexes/tiles in Civ games on combat is completely unrealistic, unplausible and misleading.

 

[shozum]

Isn't ICS essentially impossible beyond a certain point until certain policies are unlocked? If so, won't the downsides of plastering the map become crippling when unmitigated by early access to certian SPs?

No more spamming policies once you reach the industrial era The progress will be a lot slower not only because of the policy restriction placed, but because maritime is getting nerfed too. 2 large blows to ICS player's speedy climb to victory.